mcp-obsidian

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool appends content to an existing note, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the note doesn't exist), permissions required, whether changes are reversible, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe use.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and parameters listed clearly. It avoids unnecessary details, but the parameter section could be more integrated. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though not perfectly structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which likely handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases, side effects) and usage guidelines. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more safety and operational details to be fully adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'path' as a relative path to the note and 'content' as Markdown content to append, which clarifies purpose beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it doesn't elaborate on format constraints (e.g., path syntax, Markdown support), leaving gaps. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this is a baseline adequate explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'append' and the resource 'existing note', specifying it adds content to the end. It distinguishes from siblings like 'write_note' (which likely creates/overwrites) and 'read_note' (which only reads), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the note must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new notes), or compare to siblings like 'write_note' or 'update_frontmatter'. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.